{"title":"Response of science learners to contradicting information: a review of research","authors":"Patrice Potvin","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2021.2004006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article presents a critical and systematic review of the science education research literature that explores the response of learners to contradicting information (anomalous data). The review is framed in the cognitive conflict process model (CCPM) and provides an analysis of (1) the types and frequency of possible responses, (2) the conditions by which cognitive conflict is successfully triggered, and (3) the preliminary conditions that eventually favour conceptual changes. The results conclude, among other things, that anomaly-induced cognitive conflict is rather inefficient if triggered in isolation, without supportive processing activities, or without the initial availability of conceptual alternatives. A prospective synthesis is then provided, supporting Ohlsson’s view of science education activities that concentrate on cognitive utility rather than emphasising on discrediting initial conceptions. A reflection about the integration of such considerations with contemporary issues is also provided.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":"59 1","pages":"67 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.2004006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article presents a critical and systematic review of the science education research literature that explores the response of learners to contradicting information (anomalous data). The review is framed in the cognitive conflict process model (CCPM) and provides an analysis of (1) the types and frequency of possible responses, (2) the conditions by which cognitive conflict is successfully triggered, and (3) the preliminary conditions that eventually favour conceptual changes. The results conclude, among other things, that anomaly-induced cognitive conflict is rather inefficient if triggered in isolation, without supportive processing activities, or without the initial availability of conceptual alternatives. A prospective synthesis is then provided, supporting Ohlsson’s view of science education activities that concentrate on cognitive utility rather than emphasising on discrediting initial conceptions. A reflection about the integration of such considerations with contemporary issues is also provided.
期刊介绍:
The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to:
maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal;
publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin;
publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity.
Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers.
Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.